Case Number(s): 06-O-13546-DFM
In the Matter of: Bruce R. Fink, Bar # 47788, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Janet S. Hunt, Bar # 97635
Counsel for Respondent: Ellen Pansky, Bar # 77688
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
Filed: November 27, 2007.
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted January 7, 1971.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 8 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: . (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
STIPULATION AS TO FACTS
1. Bruce R. Fink ("Respondent Fink") was admitted to practice law in California on January 7, 1971.
2. On July 14, 2006, Respondent Fink was sitting as a judge pro tem in Department EAC of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. While sitting as a judge pro tem, Respondent Fink was called upon to hear a petition for restraining order in the matter entitled Gonzalez v. Salgado, Case No. KQ007464.
3. As is reflected by the transcript of the July 14, 2006 proceeding, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," the litigants put into issue the fact of the petitioner’s status as an illegal alien, and petitioner Gonzalez alleged that respondent Salgado was threatening to call the Immigration department for the purpose of having petitioner Gonzalez deported. Both petitioner Gonzales and respondent Salgado confirmed these facts on the record.
4. In the mistaken belief that an illegal alien was required to be reported to the Immigration service, Respondent Fink advised petitioner Gonzalez that, in order to avoid the possibility of being taken by the courtroom bailiff to the Immigration service, she should leave the courtroom. Petitioner Gonzalez did leave the courtroom, and Respondent Fink then denied the Petition.
5. Respondent Fink thereafter appeared on the John and Ken radio show and publicly discussed the matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent willfully violated Rule 1-710, California Rules of Professional Conduct, when sitting as a judge pro tem, by failing to comply with Canon 3B(7), a requirement of Canon D(2)(a) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which requires a judge to respect and comply with the law, and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Counts 1 through 5 and 7 through 9, inclusive, of the Notice of Disciplinary Charges are dismissed with prejudice in the interest of justice.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE
Public Admonishment of Judge James M. Brooks, in which Judge James M. Brooks was publicly admonished for failing to refrain from speech that would reasonably be perceived as biased or prejudiced, and by violating Canon 2A.
Inquiry Concerning Judge W. Jackson Willoughby, in which Judge W. Jackson Willoughby was publicly censored for engaging in a pattern of misconduct toward female employees, including making repeated derogatory and sexually suggestive remarks.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-O-13546-DFM
In the Matter of: Bruce R. Fink
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Bruce R. Fink
Date: November 21, 2007
Respondent’s Counsel: Ellen A. Pansky
Date: November 21, 2007
Deputy Trial Counsel: Janet S. Hunt
Date: November 26, 2007
Case Number(s): 06-O-13546-DFM
In the Matter of: Bruce R. Fink
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel
Date: November 27, 2007
WISHART & GARLAND
LAW OFFICES
June 5, 2007
Ellen A. Pansky, Esq.
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
1010 Sycamore Ave, #101
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Re.: Bruce R. Fink
In the Matter of BRUCE R. PINK 06-O-13546
Dear Ms. Pansky:
I am a family law attorney in Orange County and have been practicing for over 26 years. Due to the small number of practicing family lawyers in this area, I have had numerous opportunities to observe Mr. Pink in both professional and social settings.
I first met Mr. Pink over 25 years ago and have maintained a casual acquaintance with him ever since. He has been the opposing counsel on cases I have handled throughout the years and I have always found his conduct to be professional and ethical.
During his years as a lawyer, Mr. Pink has successfully handled numerous cases. He is a staunch advocate for his clients and it is surprising to find the current action against him.
I find Mr. Pink to be a valuable member of the Bar and he should remain as such.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Kindest regards,
LAW OFFICES OF WISHART & GARLAND
Signed by: Barry J. Wishart
BJW : kb
JONES DAY
3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 851-3939, Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
Direct Number: (949) 553-7593
trmalcotm@jonesday com
JP764915:kls
June 1, 2007
The State Bar of Califomia
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94015
Re: Potential Complaint against Attorney Brace R. Fink
To Whom It May Concern:
I have had the pleasure to know Mr. Fink professionally for more than 35 years. I can attest to his character and integrity within our professional community in Orange County. Mr. Fink has always dealt with me in the cases that we have handled together over the years, even when he has been my opponent, in an extremely ethical and professional manner.
I was disheartened to learn that the State Bar is considering filing charges against him in connection with an incident which occurred while he was sitting as a Temporary Judge in Los Angeles (Pomona).
Mr. Fink further enjoys the highest standing among his peers in our community. 1 have been President of the Orange County Bar Association in 1992 and was President of Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Mr. Fink has been active in both organizations and represents the finest in our profession.
Yours very truly,
Signed by: Thomas R. Malcolm
Glen D. Woodmansee
Attorney
3 Chicory Way
Irvine, CA 92612
949.786.8999
June 3, 2007
State Bar of California
Mailed to:
Ellen A.Pansky,.
1010 Sycamore Ave., #101
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Re: Case 06-0-13546
In the Matter of Brace R. Fink
Dear Ms. Pansky:
Mr. Fink has informed me that the State Bar may file charges against Mr. Fink, based on his actions in Pomona Court on July 14, 2006. This letter is to inform the reviewing body of my experience with Mr. Fink.
I have been acquainted with Mr. Fink since early 1970 until the present time. I have never been involved with any legal matters with Mr. Fink except the following:
From early 1970 through early 1975 I was the Assistant Director of the Orange County Legal Aid Society, in charge of all services north of Santa Ana. During this time, Mr. Fink .contributed over 80 hours of unpaid services for poor persons who had come to "Legal Aid" with serious legal problems.
In June 1970 Mr. Fink graduated from law school and in January 1971 he was admitted to the Bar. He was very dedicated and helpful in assisting clients of the Legal Aid Society. After 1975 I have talked with Mr. Fink occasionally, and have been very impressed with his diligence and exceptional skill in representing his clients.
Yours truly,
Signed by: Glen Woodmansee
June 5, 2007
State Bar of California
Ellen A. Pansky, Esq.
1010 Sycamore Ave # 101
South Pasadena CA 91030
Re: Bruce R Fink, No. 47788
Dear Ms. Pansky:
I am writing this letter on behalf of my friend Bruce R Fink.
I am an Attorney at Law, practicing in the State of California. I am currently working as a Real Estate Broker.
I met and have known Bruce since approximately 1970. At that time, I was employed by the Orange County Bar Association as Director of the Lawyer Referral Service, intake Supervisor of the Orange County Legal Aid Society, recruiting, scheduling and managing volunteer workers for Legal Aid Society such as, Lawyers Wives of Orange County, Law Students from Pepperdine University, Western State University and other local Colleges. I retained this position until 1979 at which time I entered the practice of law.
Because of my Orange County Bar Association employ, I attended many committee meetings, and Bruce was present in order to provide pro bono services as needed to the poor. Even then, Bruce was eager, helpful, curious, knowledgeable, caring and reliable. Whenever we needed help we contacted Bruce He generously gave his time, legal advice, inviting the needy to his office. Bruce never questioned whether he received payment or not. When no one cared, we called Bruce. He never let us down.
Subsequent to my leaving the Orange County Bar Association and to the present, Bruce and I stayed in touch. I am unable to ascertain how many times I contacted Bruce for information on legal matters, either for myself or a client. Bruce never let me down. Throughout the years, he never asked for anything in return. He always returned my calls and spent hours helping me with my cases Many times in the past, I asked other attorneys to contact Bruce when they needed help regarding a particular subject. To my recollection, he helped each and every one of them. Even now I refer clients and Bar members to him,
Bruce is the most generous man I know If he has any faults, he is zealous, passionate, he goes the extra mile. If charges are filed against Bruce, I consider it a great injustice We all make mistakes. God knows I have made many Bruce’s years of service to the Bar, its members, the public at large and clients far outweigh any one-time indiscretion, if any. Bruce is and always has been an asset to his profession.
I defer to your understanding, giving the above statement the importance it deserves I respect the State Bar, its Rules its Ethics Please lets not ignore the human element inherent in all things.
Should you require additional information, please contact my office.
Very truly
Signed by: Inge Wagner
Attorney at Law
State Bar No. 75167
714 840-4486
LAW OFFICE S OF
KIRK S. RENSE
3151 .AIRWAY AVENUE, SUITE A- 1
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
TELEPHONE: (714)317-3869 FACSIMILE: (714)432-7329 E-MAIL: krense@renselaw.com
OF COUNSEL
EDYTHE L. BRONSTON, ESQ.
June 6, 2007
State Bar of California
Ellen A. Pansky, Esq.
1010 Sycamore Avenue, #101
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Re: Brace R. Fink, Esq. / Your Case No. 06-0-13546
Dear Ms Pansky:
I am sending this letter on behalf of Bruce R. Fink, Esq., an attorney whom I have known and respected for more than twenty years. Mr. Fink has sent me a letter describing the situation involving an appearance by Aurora Gonzalez (L.A. County Sup. Ct., East Dist., Case No. KQ 007464), accompanied by copies of pertinent documents.
I know nothing of the facts of this matter other than what is contained in the material forwarded. I do know something about Mr. Fink’s character, however, and it is sterling. In my experience, he has always represented his clients zealously and practices well within the bounds of ethical (and collegial) behavior. If error was made (I am in no position to judge, but Mr. Fink’s explanation seems understandable and his conduct seemed motivated by what was best for the person appearing before him in his estimation), I am certain it was entirely unintentional. In my opinion, Mr. Fink would look upon his temporary judge position as a great trust and privilege and would never abuse his authority.
I have practiced long enough to know that understandings occur regardless of the best of intentions, and I am confident that this was a misunderstanding (perhaps on Mr. Fink’s part, perhaps on the litigant’s, perhaps both) and nothing more, and certainly not rising to any chargeable offense. Please feel free to contact me for additional comment, if desired.
Very truly yours,
Signed by: Kirk Rense, Esq.
WEBER FIRMAN
ATTORNEYS
1503 South Coast Drive, Suite 209
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1527
Telephone (714) 433-7185
June 8, 2007
To: State Bar of California
Re: Proposed Disciplinary.. Action Against Bruce R. Fink, SBN: 47788
Dear Sir or Madam:
1 have been acquainted with Attorney Fink for nearly 20 years, and have been in court with him many times. Our firm regularly refers cases to him in the fields of Family Law and Bankruptcy. I understand that Bruce is facing disciplinary action due to an incident in 2006 when he was serving as a Temporary Judge in a Family Law matter.
I currently serve, and have served for approximately 8 years as a Temporary Judge in Orange County Superior Court. In hearing second-hand about the incident, my first reaction was that Bruce did what he did in some misguided effort to help somebody, but, as I’ve seen him do on other occasions, probably misspoke. I know Bruce Fink as a highly intelligent guy with a big heart, who sincerely wants to help other people. His "problem" is that, like many other high IQ people, he gets carried away by the moment and talks too much or says the wrong thing,
I have never seen him possess or exhibit an ounce of malice or other bad intent toward others; in fact, while the current incident might make Fink appear to be ethnically or racially prejudiced, my experiences with him show him to be the exact opposite- a caring person who goes out of his way to give help to minorities.
So while I probably would have handled the situation differently, I am certain that Mr. Fink’s intentions were only for the best. Hopefully the State Bar will find that this is in fact the case.
Very truly yours,
Signed by: Jospeh A. Weber
Peter C. Tornay
ATTORNEY AT LAW
ONE CITY BLVD. WEST
SUITE 1422
ORANGE, CA 92868
June 9th, 2007
State Bar of California,
State Bar Court -Office of Chief Trial Counsel
1149 S. Hill St.
Los Angeles, Ca. 90015 -2299
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been asked by Attorney Bruce R. Fink to write letter To your office regarding my impressions of his character, ethics and standing.
I first met Attorney Fink when I was teaching at the law school known as Orange University School of Law in Orange County, Ca. My courses were Ethics and Wills. That law school later was terminated as such and we, the faculty, then became the faculty of the Pepperdine Law School. I believe the year was 1970.
Attorney Fink was a brilliant law student and scored 100 on my Ethics test. I believe it was the only 100 I gave as a grade after teaching the above-named law schools and I also taught for years at the American College of Law. (Professional Responsibility) and other courses as well.
Prior to the formation of the State Bar Court, I was a Referee for the Disciplinary Board, later serving on the Board itself for five years. Ron Stovitz, recently retired was our Mentor & good friend, assisting our Board.
I am not a personal friend of Attorney Fink. I have seen him off and on over the years, lately in the same building that my son Stephen and I have our law offices.
I believe Attorney Fink to be a person of good character; have no knowledge of any violations by him of the Rules that govern us all; and have heard that he does good work in the Family Law and Bankruptcy Courts, where he is a Certified Specialist. As to his standing in the legal community, I have never heard a bad word against him, quite the opposite.
Most sincerely,
Signed by: Peter C. Tornay
SB 29627.
Law Offices
DIANE VARGAS
910 W. 17th Street, Ste F
SANTA ANA, CA. 92706
TEL (714)245 0550
FAX (714)245 0522
7/29/07
The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, Ca. 90015-2299
Re: In the Matter of Bruce R. Fink
No: 47788
To whom it may concern:
The California State Bar has filed charges against Mr. Bruce Fink as a result of his actions while serving as a Temporary Judge in the Los Angeles (Pomona) Court in July 2006.
I am a family law attorney that practices law mainly in Orange County. I have been doing so since 1993. In the course of my practice I have had one ease with Mr. Fink as opposing counsel. Mr. Fink advocated zealously for his client, who by the way was Hispanic. Mr. Fink was always prompt, respectful and well prepared. At the conclusion of the case, Mr. Fink maintained a professional and respectful relationship with me.
Should you have any questions please feel free to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Signed by: Diane Vargas
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on November 27, 2007, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING STAYED SUSPENSION; NO ACTUAL SUSPENSION
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
ELLEN ANNE PANSKY
PANSKY & MARKLE
1010 SYCAMORE AVE #101
SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
JANET HUNT, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 27, 2007.
Signed by:
Tammy R. Cleaver
Case Administrator
State Bar Court